FLCCC has jumped on anything to downplay the pandemic and hinder effective treatment. They’re nuts.
But when you repeatedly insist 2+2=5 that’s not a disagreement over the facts. The right has been pretending that there is a scientific dispute over things in which there is no meaningful dispute.
The flip side of this is attempting to make things “true” by shouting them loud enough.
(The link itself loads, no article behind it.)
They’re careful to make the laws not appear to do what they actually do. Just look at the reality–can’t teach things that could make people uncomfortable with who they are. Teaching about Jim Crow could make the children of white supremacists uncomfortable.
Admittedly this is college but:
What we have here is a “study” that lumped all surgeries on trans patients together, whatever the reason. To rebut it either requires their cooperation or the ability to look at why each of those surgeries were performed.
Puberty blockers are not sterilization.
There were a lot of Jan 6 “protesters” that were actually attempting a coup. Ignore the jihadists, most are peaceful, never mind 9/11.
It took a bit of digging to figure out what this one was actually about, so many of the links are the right wing blaming the FBI over it.
I’m still not finding everything, but the guy was attacking clinic escorts. And the FBI has a very different say on what actually went down. I have found his wife has effectively admitted he’s guilty.
The PDF downloads for me. Go to the author’s wikipedia page.
There’s another link for it there in the references.
Along with this quote:
“… the physical sexual abuse of students in [public] schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by [Catholic] priests.”
That’s not how laws work. Laws don’t have appearances. They have text. If the text of the law doesn’t ban the teaching of Jim Crow, it doesn’t matter how it “appears” to you or a teacher. They simply don’t ban it.
If there are teachers afraid to teach the Jim Crow lesson they were giving before the law, that’s because they were injected more than just historical facts into their lessons before the state told them to stop. The American History books in high school still contain lessons on Jim Crow. The teachers can follow the lesson in the book and they will have nothing to worry about.
Not sure what that has to do with what we were just talking about, but if I were an alumnus of U of Idaho and cared about students receiving birth control from the university, I’d be pretty upset with how spineless they are. But are they really spineless, or are they just softly protesting the new law by claiming (falsely) that they could be prosecuted under an abortion law for giving out birth control that no court in the land has classified as abortifacients? Bold strategy. Let’s see if it pays off for 'em.
There are plenty of people with HIPAA clearance that can look at those surgeries and aggregate the data for release in a way that wouldn’t even remotely violate HIPAA. You’re completely wrong by thinking HIPAA is the reason we don’t know whether these surgeries were medically necessary or elective.
Houck protests his local clinic weekly, so to say he “was attacking” clinic escorts would imply this was a regular occurrence. Yet he is being charged federally over two incidents with the same escort. The incidents in question happened nearly 1 year ago. At the time, the “victim” filed charges with the local police but never showed up to court, even though Houck did. All the charges were thrown out. It is clear the victim here is just as much an activist at the accused. Additionally:
The FACE act is unconstitutional. There is no interstate commerce, federal employee, or federal property basis for making a simple assault a federal crime.
There is no precedent for a federal violation of the FACE act for an incident similar to the one in which Houck is suspected.
I don’t like when people claim the police “raided” their home when they didn’t actually do that. Shame on the original reports for using that term when it wasn’t the case. However, according to the FBI themselves, they had around dozen agents and their guns were drawn when they knocked on Houck’s door early in the morning to take him into custody. This is after Houck was informed he was under investigation and his lawyer told the FBI he would surrender if charged. I reiterate, this was an incident that happened nearly a year ago in which Houck showed up to all his prior court appearances and the local police never felt the need to take him into custody. He should have been informed of his indictment by the agent on the case and been allowed to surrender. If they really didn’t want to do that, two agents without guns drawn could have taken him into custody with no problem. I can speak from personal police experience that I have knocked on doors of people suspected/wanted of much more dangerous crimes than “shoving” someone, and I usually had one or zero other officers backing me up and no gun drawn. This was an excessive show of force for an arrest based on the facts of this case.
Downplaying? Odd their head guy was the one to pitch steroids for late stage covid treatment early in the summer of 2020, one of the few treatments we had that everyone would eventually agree “worked well” prior to vaccines. Kinda weird for someone you suggest thinks the pandemic doesn’t exist.
You may remember that the “conventional wisdom” at the time was to eschew steroids due to their immunosuppressive effects (thought to hurt your body’s chances at fighting the virus). Kory realized as a pulmonary specialist that the deadly late covid disease was an inflammatory reaction causing pneumonia and steroids would help, rather than hurt, at that point.
I would also add that under the US / FDA / WHO approach, until very recently when they approved the PFE and MRK antiviral pills for 2022, there was No Approved Early Treatment.. So given that, it’s odd for you to say they’re “hinder[ing] effective treatment” by telling people to take Vit D or ivermectin or whatever early since those are
very safe in doctor approved doses, and
have no interactions with later stage treatments (which would be oxygen first if hospitalized, followed by steroids if things got much worse).
How is that hindering anything? Sure they may not help, but they won’t hurt.
This is a blatantly illegal overstep by the Federal Reserve and we can hope that it will be slapped down by the courts under the Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA decision. Are they aiming to withhold financing and other financial transactions from individuals and businesses with a low “green score”?
The board said Thursday it chose six of the nation’s largest financial institutions to assist in “enhancing the ability of supervisors and firms to measure and manage climate-related financial risks.”
The other participants are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley.
G
The Fed board said that scenario analysis — in which the resilience of financial institutions is assessed under different hypothetical climate scenarios — “is an emerging tool to assess climate-related financial risks.”
Cue @Loren claiming this sort of thing isn’t actually happening anywhere, so there is no reason for state legislatures to step in and stop it.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1575527183405428737
The district’s policy is to facilitate child sexual transitions without notifying parents. “[Students] have the right to be ‘out’ at school, and to not have that information that they are ‘out’—with new pronouns, with a new identity—in any way shared with those folks at home.”
Is it really an overstep or illegal? I think it sound more like just another stupid and pointless exercise they’re being subjected to. Climate risks are very hypothetical and highly subjective; without wasting tremendous amounts of money - likely more than the tangible risk being addressed in the first place - there is no way this analysis and assessment will produce any reliably actionable conclusions (besides the conclusions that have already be preapproved before they even start).
But banks are good at evaluating investment risk–while the risks themselves aren’t a core thing for the banks they’re good at finding the people that do know. That’s how you make money in investment banking–be better than the other guy at evaluating possible deals.
If I suss it correctly, San Fran Uni SD is encouraging the “n-word”. Hang 'em. Hang 'em, high. Get the torches and send 'em to Hades, where they obviously belong. Gomer says “Shame, Shame, Shame”.
Name one state law that prohibits a bank from using potential climate changes in their evaluation of lending/investment risk?
This rule is being implimented in an attempt to give “green” sectors a helping hand, since they’ve developed a rather poor investment reputation when evaluated by normal [mainstream] bank lending standards. And as a means to artificially knock down the reliable, well-established, low-risk, tried-and-true “winning” investment opportunities (because they’re evil, and evil capitalists refuse to invest morally and instead just want to make a buck).
It is time to apply the shoe polish for black face.
Edit. Do you think this includes Chinese-Americans? Maybe saying “no Hablo Ingles” will be sufficient?
